Hello Ken.
Thanks for your reply, sorry for the delay I have been away for a week.
I agree, after all Ken, the first day (Sunday) was the day that Jesus, was witnessed by the disciples to have risen from the grave. Also, Jesus broke the bread with the disciples on that first day. Let's just call the first day, the Lord's day from now on.
I appreciate your position but can't follow with you. Whether one says, "the house is red" or "red is the house" the point is the same. The "Day of the Lord" and "The Lord's day" are not a day of the week but an event as recorded in the Prophets. John was not sitting there in the spirit on a Sunday, well, he may have been but that isn't what he was speaking about. He was watching end time events unfold, thus he was in the spirit on the Lord's day, the day of the Lord as recorded in places like Joel 2:31.
I think I can show that the practice of Sunday gathering, to break the bread,
was fully in place from the text in Acts 20. I implore you to read the text very carefully, Ken.
Acts 20
6 We sailed from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and came to them at Troas within five days; and there we stayed seven days.
Paul and the disciples stayed in Troas for seven days, lock that time duration in, Ken.
Acts 20
7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day.
Paul is leaving the next day, so Paul must have already been in Troas for six days. Also please note, the disciples gathered to break bread on the first day. The text does not say, the disciples had gathered to listen to Paul and to break the bread. Paul waits until they gather on the first day and then talks to them.
I think you are forcing a little too much western understanding on the text. "Gathering to break bread" is a well understood Hebraic idiom that refers to eating a meal. It isn't "day"specific brother, it is simply a meal.
Also... a biblical day begins and ends at sundown. If they gathered to break bread (eat dinner) on the first day of the week and he was leaving "the next DAY," then this gathering of brothers for a meal takes place in the evening. This means they were gathered for havdalah, the close of Shabbat meal and then Paul taught. This isn't a mandate to keep Sunday... no Scripture supports a Sunday Sabbath.
I don't think anyone really knows whether the epistle of Barnabas, is a trustworthy letter or not. The author of this epistle is not mentioned in the epistle, nor does this letter make any claim to have been written by an apostle. So it cannot be a forgery. It is simply a letter written by some Christian with an axe to grind, regarding the Jewish law. The date of writing is in the range, 70 A.D. to 132 A.D.
I would like to see the context... is it Halacha, Jewish law OR God's law. You see, a mainstream Christian will look at the feasts and say, "Feasts of the Jews." Yet Leviticus calls them "the Feasts of the LORD," and He calls them, "My feasts." So it would be interesting to see the context, I have not read that book in some time.
This is a double edged sword, the Gentiles were never instructed to keep the 'ten commandments', either Ken. Even in Acts 15, which is the first formal council held by the apostles and the elders. To look into the issue of whether the Gentiles should be under the law. This formal council returned the result, the Gentiles do not need to be under the law of Moses. There we have the commandment of God to the Gentiles, Gentiles are not under the law of Moses.
Respectfully, you lack some historical understanding here. 50 years before the Council in Acts 15, there was a debate between the two school of Pharisaical thought. Hillel (Beit or School of Hillel which taught the "spirit of the law") debated Shamai (Beit Shamai, which taught the "letter of the law") about what should be expected of a Jewish proselyte. Hillel essentially listed the 4 things we see in Acts 15 and said that the new convert would learn the rest as they go. Shamai agreed on the 4 things but added that one needed to recite ALL 613 commandments AND.... be circumcised. Hillel opposed this because he knew that the commandment to be circumcised was not given to the newborn child, after all, an 8 day old male isn't performing his own bris. The commandment was given to the child's father. Anyway.... the people accepted the ruling of Shamai and that was the law of the land. Fast forward 50 years and we see a couple of followers of Shamai claim that new Christians (Christianity was a sect of Judaism in the first century) needed to be circumcised in order to be part of the sect. Paul RIGHTLY disagreed and we get the Council of Jerusalem. What happened there? A BAD 50 year old decision was reversed. New converts into the faith should not have too much put on them at first just as Naaman was told to "go in peace" by Elisha when he had his fill for that day. So 4 things were listed... NOT an exhaustive list... after all, loving God and neighbor aren't on that list, not stealing or having homosexual sex... not on the list. What was on the list as a "starting point," and the NEXT VERSE states that Moses (an idiomatic reference to the Torah) is read in the synagogues each Sabbath. In other words, this is a marathon and here is a place to start... now go and get discipled and learn the rest.
I disagree that the death of James and the destruction of the temple. Defined
the direction of the church, the Gentile church was isolated from events in
Jerusalem. These two events affected the Jewish church.
That's fine, we don't need to agree on every detail. However, we have historical evidence that half the Jewish believers in Yeshua left for the mountains when the temple was destroyed. We KNOW that... so I believe it played a roll. Ultimately, it was what happened later... but I will address this in a second.
Even in the scripture it is clear that the Gentiles were never required to become Jews. I disagree with your dating (150 A.D.), the Gentiles from the time of
(Acts 15) were already separating from the Jewish law. The Gentiles are not Jews, hence, the Gentiles were never told that they were UNDER the law.
Justin Martyr and Melito were commenting on a trend that began way before
150 A.D.
Jewish law or God's law? Not all of Israel is Jewish my new friend. And while I agree that we are NOT to become Jewish, we ARE supposed to follow Yeshua. And if it was ok and acceptable to the Father that he refrained from unclean meat, or kept the feasts, then why is it ok for him and not for us? If I were doing this thinking it saved me, that would be wrong... but if I am doing this because I love God ( 1 John 5:3 ) then it is acceptable before Him.
Brother... I don't expect you to accept this, but it is true and if you search it out and just let the truth fall where it may, you will see this. A gentile Christian is an oxymoron. In the early English bibles, ethnos was translated as nations or gentiles. Specifically, that is any nation NOT Israel or pagans. Proof? The Webster's 1828 defines gentiles as, "pagans, heathens, anyone who is not a Jew >>OR<< or Christian." Today, we define a gentile as, "any believer in Jesus who is not Jewish." Here is the problem... ethnos means pagan, heathen, a nation that is not Israel and in 1611 that is why the word "gentile" was chosen as the word to translate it into. However, the definition has changed and now we read the MODERN definition into a word that when first used meant something else. You are not a gentile... Paul said you WERE a gentile but you are NOW a fellowcitizen of the Commonwealth of Israel. We are a part of Israel... which must be the case because you will not find a covenant made with gentiles. Hebrews 8:8-11 (which quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34) is tied to the work of Yeshua and is clearly what we are apart of... AND... is no made with gentiles but rather with Judah (the Jews) and Israel (us).
Rejoice Ken, we are not under the yoke of the law.
What you see as a yoke I see as a blessing. However, I want to be clear... I am NOT looking for you to walk or think or act like me. Just follow your own convictions and in the end we will ALL stand corrected for many things.
God's judgement of Israel was final, the nation disappeared for two thousand years. Not sure that Christianity was ever a Jewish sect, after all Ken, we
are a new creation in Christ. There is no Jew or Gentile in this new creation.
If you went to a theater for a 2 hour movie and managed to only catch the last 1/2 hour.. you might get hooked in and enjoy what you did see... but the context and relationships and many things that went into making the last 1/2 what it is, was missed, if you did not see the first hour and a half. The OT is 75% of the bible and without it you can find the Lord in the NT, discern some of God's will, but you are leaving food on the table that God desires us to eat. I am saying this because the modern Christian interpretation has Israel cut off and that is that... no longer a people of God. But Deuteronomy 30:1-6, all of Hosea (especially chapter 1) and so many more places speak of repeated promises to bring Israel back from their punishment. "In the place where I said you that you are not my people, there will I call you sons of the Living God." We have Israel cut off and done, God doesn't.
Away with the Old Covenant and in with the New Covenant. If you can understand what the new creation represents, then you will see through it all, Ken.
I reject the date of 150 A.D., I accept the formal date of Acts 15.
Jeremiah 31 has the words "new covenant." The word for "new" is chadasha which is the adjective form of a verb that means 'to renew.' In Hebrews 8 we see the same and where we see "new" we see kainos. Kainos means "new in regards to freshness, renew" whereas "nehos" (or neos) means "new in regards to AGE." It isn't a brand new covenant, it is the everlasting covenant (see Psalm 105:8-10) renewed through the blood of Yeshua.
Ken, the scripture is silent about the time that Jesus rose from the grave. Why did you say Saturday night? To say Saturday night is beyond what the scripture states, the apostles witnessed the risen Christ on the first day (Jewish time).
Not at all.... He was killed at the 9th hour on Passover, the 14th of Nisan. The 9th hour is 3:00PM and when Passover ends at sundown you have a High Sabbath, the first day of Unleavened bread. We know he was dead for 3 DAYS >>AND<< NIGHTS.... so it is simple math from there....
Thursday - day 1 (Passover, the 14th of Nisan)
Thursday night - night 1 (begin High Sabbath)
Friday - day 2 (High Sabbath all day)
Friday night - night 2 (end High Sabbath, begin weekly Sabbath)
Saturday - day 3 (weekly Sabbath all day)
Saturday night - night 3 (end weekly Sabbath)
Mat 28:1 Now
after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.
If he was in the tomb on Sunday after sunrise, that would mark day 4... he was dead 3 days and nights. So, sometime before dawn, after the weekly Sabbath he rose and the empty tomb was found at sunrise Sunday morning.
Jesus rose some time before dawn or even at dawn, on the first day (Sunday).
There is no mention of a Sabbath evening (Saturday night) in the Gospel accounts of the resurrection.
Again, Matthew 28:1 is very clear. Also, there is a language variation between a weekly Sabbath and a High Sabbath which is why my chart above contains the High Sabbath and the weekly Sabbath.
The Gentiles were never told to honor the Sabbath, that is pure inference. To even hint that the Gentiles were under the law, is heresy Ken.
"Under the law" is an idiomatic reference to one's guilt... we are no longer under the law, no longer guilty. We are under grace... forgiven, declared innocent. The idea that God gave Torah and called it everlasting and then nailed it to the cross and did away with it causes all kinds of issues that you may, or may not, be ready to deal with. I don't mean that in a condescending way, but if God calls something everlasting it is.... and if our theology causes us to make the everlasting go away, it isn't the Scripture that has the issue, it is our theology. I have this discussion all the time brother. Usually when I make the comment I just did I get the Hebrews 8 priesthood "change" thrown at me. Instead of taking the time to consider the words, WAIT on God and ask Him, "is there anything here for me Father?" and then WAIT for Him to answer... we go on defense, call names, malign brothers, cause division... for what? Because of a difference in understanding? Sad... and I am not saying you have done anything like that. We don't agree but you have been respectful and I appreciate that so much!
By the way, "heresy" is another word that has changed in meaning. Look it up in Thayer or Liddle-Scott.
Blessings.
Ken
